The New World

Started by edison, December 09, 2004, 12:09:28 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

metroshane

I must have been confused by the title.

Is that a real miniseries?  If so, I'm going to buy a lotto ticket.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

lamas

re-direct this if you need to.

anyone else get the feeling that Spielberg is Malick's bitch?  First, Malick releases Badlands in '73 which is followed by Spielberg's more commercial version of the "lovers on the run" theme, '74's Sugarland Express.  Malick is set to film The Thin Red Line and Spielberg comes out with the more commercialized version of the WWII drama with Saving Private Ryan.  Now, Malick's got his American Indian epic coming out and Spielberg executive produces Into the West.  how 'bout you stop biting the master Spielberg?!

meatball

Quote from: metroshaneI must have been confused by the title.

Definitely. Did you even watch the trailer? Or know a bit about American history?

metroshane

I only saw a teaser.  But I don't usually get my American History from Hollywood movies...except for that economics bit in Good Will Hunting.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

meatball


cowboykurtis

Quote from: lamas

anyone else get the feeling that Spielberg is Malick's bitch?  

...No...
...your excuses are your own...

metroshane

OK, watched the trailer and I must admit is looks fascinating.  NOT!  What a yawn fest.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

lamas

FYI, the film's website www.thenewworldmovie.com has been updated with a blog, podcasts, sketchbook and other assorted poop.

Pubrick

there's even sumthing for Metros Hane..

http://thenewworldmovie.com/readinglist.pdf

right-click and save target as.
under the paving stones.

metroshane

Maybe Collin Ferrel will come over to my house, read to me, make me learn to smoke and then punch me in the nose.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

MacGuffin

New World, New Date
What do Pocahontas and Rudolph have in common?

New Line had set a November 9, 2005 release date for writer-director Terrence Malick's The New World, a retelling of the legend of Pocahontas and John Smith. But now, according to Box Office Mojo, the new release date is December 25th.

The New World had been expected to open wide on Nov. 9 but instead it will only open in L.A. and New York City on Dec. 25. The Christmas release date would allow the period drama to be eligible for Academy Award consideration. The film's new wide release date is set for Jan.13, 2006 (Friday the 13th!).
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pwaybloe

Quote from: name deleted by modage
The New World had been expected to open wide on Nov. 9 but instead it will only open in L.A. and New York City on Dec. 25. The Christmas release date would allow the period drama to be eligible for Academy Award consideration.

Does this sound right?  Is the Academy's annual nomination range not within a calender year?  Or is it just saying, "whew, we just got this movie in before the end of the year, dude.  Party at Malick's house!"

matt35mm

It just means that it's a movie expected to get Oscar heat, which would be the main point of sale for this movie's target audience.  The Oscar nomination range is from Jan 1 to Dec 31.

By releasing it at the very end of the year, you could have it playing in theaters still while all the Oscar buzz is going around.  If it does well enough, it could even be playing after it's been nominated.  The period between nomination and awards ceremony is Oscar season, which is very enticing for studios with films that they feel are Oscar worthy.

If released in early-November, it would be out of theaters by the time any serious Oscar buzz surrounds it.

Pwaybloe

I understand the marketing.  That's the one thing that I do understand about Hollywood.  The statement just sounded incorrect.  

If they just put "better" in front of "elgible," the sentence would make more sense.

matt35mm

Oh.  I read the sentence as meaning that they wanted to push it back, but by keeping it within this year, it is still eligible for this year's Oscars.